17 a remedy for apathy? the role of ngos in activating...

17 A Remedy for Apathy? The Role of NGOs in Activating Citizens in Today’s Russia

Michał Bron Jr

This text stems from my research interest in the origins, the development and the

conditions of civil society in Russia. One of the phenomena under study was the

extent to which Russia’s citizens are interested in actively participating in social

and political life of their country, region and local community. As a result, the

notion of apathy surfaced from a number of research projects carried out by

other scholars in Russia. Another phenomenon, that appeared to be of great

concern to many observers, was that of Western assistance. The state authorities,

as well as NGO leaders and the general public were taking very different and

changing attitudes towards the presence and work of foreign donors.

My research on civil society in Russia is based on analyses of various

studies carried out by Russian and Western scholars, reports presented by

individual NGOs, results of numerous public opinion polls as well as on relevant

literature on the Russian society at large.

This article is an attempt to document and to explain conditions of work

done by Russian non-governmental organisations, assisted by Western know-

how and funds, in awakening civic activism among Russia’s inhabitants. To

acquaint readers with the historical conditions under which consecutive

generations have been brought up, a phenomenon called ‘Oblomščina’ is

discussed. This is followed by an account of the potential impact of the Soviet

legacy on today’s Russia and its citizens and a presentation of the current

conditions under which non-governmental organisations work, including

discussion of a short report on Western assistance. The article ends with

examples of well-functioning NGOs and some concluding remarks.

The Oblomov Syndrome

An interesting remark could be made on ‘the Russian national character’, which

is often referred to as the ‘Oblomov syndrome’ or ‘Oblomščina’. The name

comes from a novel entitled Oblomov (1979/1915/1858) by Ivan A. Gončarov

280 Michal Bron Jr

(1812–1891).1 The (anti-)hero of the novel, Ilja Iljič Oblomov has become a

symbol of indolence and inactivity, being a completely lethargic person. He

spends his time mostly in bed or trying to get up. He declares to his servant his

worry about the worsening condition of his estates but does nothing about it.

The family and estate’s name itself tells the reader about the condition that the

residence was in – the Russian word oblomok means a broken-off piece.

He assures his friends that the social life of Sankt-Petersburg really appeals

to him, but he lacks the will to dress and go out “in typical Oblomov fashion,

[he] preferred the comforts of his own sybaritic life to the upset and strain of

pursuing active policies” (Peace, 1991, p. 2). Oblomščina, thus, is:

a model of Russian attitudes to work which are regrettably too prevalent. Some well

known symptoms of this disease are: a talismanic belief that putting things on paper

is the same as doing them, an indifference to keeping to agreed schedules and

actions, a preference to theorise rather than to apply an undoubted intelligence to the

identification and solution of real problems. (Kennaway, 1997, p. 14)

Ilja Iljič Oblomov, a man in constant apathetic lethargy, was tormented by

uncertainty on what he was to do. The question: Čto delat'? (What is to be

done?) is, apparently, quite popular among Russian writers and ideologues. In

1862, four years after Gončarov’s Oblomov, a novel by Nikolaj Gavrilovič

Černyševskij appeared entitled What is to be done? (The answer was: create new

men and women.) An Oblomov-like answer was given by a male hero in one of

Turgenev’s novels: “Čto delat'? Razumeetsja, pokorit’sja sud'be” [What is to be

done? Subjugate to fate, naturally].

In 1902, a certain Vladimir Il'jič Ul'janov, known better as Lenin, published

eminently political treatise entitled What is to be done? (The answer: make a

revolution.) Indeed, revolutions used to activate many … and decapitate some.

However, despite the revolution, and many beheaded citizens in Soviet Russia,

the word Oblomščina survived into the bolsheviks times. Bukharin, for instance,

commented at his own trial that Oblomščina was one of the characteristic

features of the Soviet bureaucracy.2 Oblomščina survived also the collapse of

the communist regime: in a recent on-line dictionary of the Russian language

one can find ‘Oblomov’ with its explanation: ‘see lazy’.3

1 Electronic version available at: http://www.oblomovka.com/eldritch/iag/oblomov.txt

2 Another hero of Gončarov's novel is Štol'c – quite an opposite character to Oblomov. He

does know the ‘rules of the game’ and how to adjust his actions to them; he is a ‘wise-guy’

and a realist. Interestingly, a well-known Russian political scientists, Andrej Piontkovskij

called president Putin a “Štol'c at the Kremlin”.

3 Slovar' russkich sinonimov i schodnych po smyslu vyraženij [Dictionary of Russian

synonyms and synonymous phrases] http://encycl.yandex.ru

The Role of NGOs in Activating Citizens in Today’s Russia 281

So, what is to be done about such an attitude? A remedy lies in activating

citizens through a network of non-governmental organisations. However, to

create an open society out of such traditions and habits, to develop a free market,

and to protect individual rights against violence and corruption are most

daunting political and social tasks.

Points of Departure

The Soviet Legacy

Together with the changes in the State’s political and economic realms the

Russian society at large as well as individual citizens have undergone a

remarkable transformation. To dismantle the former authoritarian regime and to

advance democratic rules in post-Soviet Russia new ways of organising the

society have to be implemented. To make it possible that the voices of

individual citizens will be heard, some constitutive elements of the civil society

have been established. Among them, a variety of voluntary associations play a

crucial role in bringing together people, formulating their needs and wishes.

Based on Western European and American experiences, these associations are

perceived as a constitutive element of a civil society in statu nascendi. It is, thus,

foreign donors (governmental agencies or individual organisations) who have

helped to create them in Russia.

Newly started non-governmental organisations (NGOs) need not only to

convince the state and local authorities to be treated as serious partners but also

to combat remnants of communism deeply rooted in the Russian citizenry.

Seven decades of the Soviet rule resulted in the destruction of communities’

cohesiveness, which aggravated people’s mistrust and impassivity. According to

the Soviet constitution it was possible to establish a non-governmental

organisation. However, the Soviet practice showed that it was impossible to set

up an association without the authorities’ intervention and control. Instead,

people were expected to ‘volunteer’ their time, and energy, to attend meetings

arranged by state-initiated and state-controlled organisations. Parallel to

constraints put on associations, also an absence of religious congregations

limited people’s chances to meet and interact with each other.

One would expect that when long-awaited democratic rules have been

implemented, citizens would use freedom to the full. New possibilities raised

expectations, demands and activity. Eventually, however, democratisation à la Russe showed its shortcomings. A new-old political class did not meet people’s

hopes: only a few could benefit from economic reforms while for many the

standard of living deteriorated. All that could hardly increase the level of

citizens’ commitment.

282 Michal Bron Jr

This doubt is corroborated by research findings and numerous public

opinion polls, which seek to determine the state of people’s minds in today’s

Russia. Sociological surveys conducted regularly in the years 1992-1998 give a

thorough insight into this problem. The collected data may provide a reliable

picture of various factors and phenomena, such as dynamics of changes in

attitudes of Russia’s inhabitants towards economic, political and social reforms;

citizens’ feelings and sentiments; and electoral preferences. The surveys

entitled: How are you doing, Russia? [Kak živeš, Rossija?] contained

questionnaires, which were distributed among a representative sample of adult

population of the whole country (Levašov, 2001). They were carried out by a

large team of researchers from a special unit of the Institute of Socio-political

Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The respondents were selected

according to sex, age, education, place of living, nationality, social status and

profession. The surveys were carried out in cities and villages in all twelve

economic zones and across the whole country.

It is hardly possible to speak of active citizens when one of these nation-

wide representative surveys revealed, that 88.6 percent of adult citizens does not

take part in any social or political activity. The biggest group of passive citizens

consists of an age group of 30-45 years old; as much as 92.5 percent among 35-

39 years old are not active at all (Levašov, 2001, p. 153).

The results show that despite implementing democratic rights and freedoms

Russia’s citizens fail to actively engage themselves in political life of their

country. Even though a significant number of adult citizens rejected previous

mechanisms of involving people in political life of the country, they still need to

develop a new motivational system of becoming active.

In general, the 1992 survey, the first one in a series of nation-wide surveys

conducted throughout the 1990s, disclosed respondents’ discomfort and

dissatisfaction with the living conditions, and their frail trust in possibilities to

change those conditions, even in a distant future (Levašov, 2001, p. 205).

One of the explanations for this apathy and/or reluctance is a demographic

composition of the Russian society. The social group which has been hit most

severely by new rules of market economy is elderly people, who make up 25

percent of the whole population, and as much as 35 percent of the electorate

(Levašov, 2001, p. 388). The situation they were put into exacerbated passivity

and often fatalism.

The findings collected through public opinion polls and nationwide

sociological surveys between 1992-1999 can be corroborated by answers taken

from in-depth interviews. In 1998 and 2000 questions were put to ‘ordinary’

Russians to learn about how they assessed the functioning of various state

agencies and what changes they would like to make (Carnaghan, 2001). The

interviews, conducted in Russian, were taken throughout the whole country in

large cities such as Moscow and Novosibirsk, medium-sized towns like Voronež


and Krasnojarsk, and even in a small collective farm in Siberia. The

interviewees varied with respect to age, education and political sympathies. The

researcher concluded that:

Russians are bothered by the ways existing institutions fail to reflect the views and

protect the interests of ordinary citizens, [and by] their tendency toward unproductive

conflict and overcentralization. Although many citizens support democratic values,

they are less certain that their institutions do the same. (Carnaghan, 2001, p. 337)

Clearly, citizens of Russia, whether in large metropoles or in small towns,

did not have any reasons for feeling comfortable and peaceful. Even despite

political upheaval the daily life of many did not alter much. Like in previous

decades they spent their days as ‘urban hunters and gatherers’. To provide

themselves and their families with the necessities of life still took a bigger part

of their free time (as well as working time). Women especially were hit by that

(Ryan, 1993).

There is almost unanimous agreement among social and political scientists

to see the origins of this situation in the Soviet legacy. During the Soviet regime,

citizens were discouraged from taking, or even showing, an initiative, especially

in social and political lives.

Under enduring despotism… [t]ime appears to stand still. Individuals continue to be

born, to mature, to work and to love, to play and to quarrel, to have children and to

die, and yet everything around them becomes motionless, petrified and repetitious.

Political life becomes utterly boring. (Keane, 1998, p. 92-93)

When state agencies, governmental or political institutions were

unresponsive to citizens, they – in turn – felt no loyalty to them. The

authoritarian regime expected three ‘virtues’ of the Soviet citizens: obedience,

fear, and habit. Among the most averted vices, the citizens could be charged for,

were an independent mind, frankness and one’s own initiative.

After decades of state domination, enforced activism and mutual suspicion, most

Russians came to regard the public sphere as a realm of hypocrisy and surveillance

rather than tolerance and cooperation. In this atmosphere, many retreated as much as

possible into the privacy of their family and a close circle of friends. (Richter, 2000)

284 Michal Bron Jr

After being exposed to the Soviet school system, and socialised by the

Soviet labour market, many citizens became unable to act freely. Political and

civil rights were not respected by the state authorities while most citizens were

unable, or unwilling, to demand them. Indifference, contentment, apathy became

dominant attitudes of the majority.

In 1991 Jurij Afanas'ev, a well-known historian, wrote about the mood

prevailing among people:

In our amoeba-like social life people are not seen as having different interests or as

belonging to different groups. In this society everyone or almost everyone is

supposed to be the same; everyone works for the state, everyone is on salary,

everyone is on a leash… Most people have not expressed a desire for anything new,

which seems clear evidence that an enormous number of people in our society do not

want positive changes in it. (Afanas'ev, 1991, p. 38)

Personally, I cannot see and accept this direct causal interrelationship

between apathy and Afanas'ev’s conclusion that people do not wish positive

changes. For me it is a too far-fetched assumption. Yet, it is true that apathy did

exist and is clearly present today.

Political apathy has been defined as “a loss or suppression of emotional

affect with regard to, a listlessness, a loss of interest in, some issue, set of issues,

or perhaps politics itself” (DeLuca, 1995, p. 191). It is first and foremost “a state

of mind or a political fate brought about by forces, structures, institutions, or

elite manipulation over which one has little or no control, and perhaps little

knowledge” (p. 11).

The collapse of the Soviet state and its ideology raised many expectations –

inside and outside the country. A great chance of bringing about changes in

people’s attitudes has been seen, in the West, through establishing elements of

civil society. Various European, US and international agencies and organisations

have decided then to invest their funds and know-how in non-governmental

organisations. In this way foreign volunteers and donors have helped to foster

democracy in Russia. Generally, they all have been regarded as idealistic and

committed people.

Current Conditions

Estimates of the number of NGOs actually existing in Russia vary greatly –

from 30,000 to 100,000. Even the official statistics are not very reliable.

According to them on January 1, 2000 there were 275,000 non-governmental

and non-municipal organisations registered. However, it is estimated that only

approximately seventy thousand were really active. They engaged about 2.5

million volunteers and employees (Diligenskij, 2001, p. 15). According to a poll


carried out in June 2001 only five percent of Russians counted themselves as

members of any organisation.4

As in any other country, the Russian non-governmental organisations tend to

focus on the following:

motivating individuals to act as citizens in all aspects of society rather than

bowing to or depending on state power and beneficence;

promoting pluralism and diversity in society, such as protecting and strengthening

cultural, ethnic, religious, linguistic and other identities;

creating an alternative to centralised state agencies for providing services with

greater independence and flexibility;

establishing the mechanisms by which governments and the market can be held

accountable by the public (Judge, 1995).

In the case of Russia, an especially important value the non-governmental

organisations have, is the fact that they promote issues previously ignored by the

Soviet authorities (or which even were forbidden) and that they contribute to the

awakening of civic engagement among the population. What was called ‘anti-

State political activity’ of the few some 12-15 years ago is today a virtue

attracting many.

It is possible to distinguish at least two main factors for an explosive growth

of voluntary organisations. The first is all the political changes, which occurred

in the early 1990s. The collapse of the authoritarian regime opened new

possibilities and conditions to participate in political, social and economic life of

the country. The second is a breakdown of the socialist welfare state – several

services have been reduced or ceased to be provided, thus this social vacuum has

been filled by newly established voluntary organisations (although the State is

still regarded as the principal provider of welfare services).

However, the conditions under which the Russian non-governmental

organisations had to function were all but favourable:

The lack of a civil society, the absence of a tradition of non-governmental

organisations and social movements, and the impoverished economic infrastructure

available to support such organisations all combine to make the development of a

4 See Obščestvennye organizacii v Rossii [Social organisations in Russia], June 28, 2001

http://www.fom.ru/survey/dominant/224/566/1880.html

286 Michal Bron Jr

domestic funding base very difficult for a social movement in today’s Russia.

(Sperling, 1998)

One of the most immediate needs was to reform legislation regarding non-

governmental organisations. In the summer of 1995 the president of the Russian

Federation, Boris Yeltsin, signed a law, which defined the rules under which

charity and voluntary organisations could work. The law enabled citizens to

establish the so-called ‘public associations’. It also provided a tool to hinder

arbitrary interference of state, regional or local authorities. It was the first

attempt of the federal government and parliament to eliminate distrust between

governmental agencies and NGOs.

The scope of interests, areas of work or issues that are taken up by Russian

NGOs do not differ much from any Western ones. NGOs work with such issues

as: human rights, ecology, protection of minorities’ rights, education in various

spheres of public life, charity, voluntary work for the elderly, disabled, orphans,

juvenile delinquents, even assisting in search for relatives perished during the

World War II.

Some NGOs, especially in the early 1990s, were rather suspicious and

reluctant to accept grants from the state agencies. It was feared that with

governmental funds there would come control and/or influence. Interestingly, a

few organisations showed similar suspicion towards Western donors – whether

individual, corporate or governmental.

Lack of money is sometimes compensated by outreach and publicity

campaigns that are consciously and professionally organised. The co-operation

of many NGOs with local media and an extensive use of the Internet,

poses a great threat to apathetic political bodies and elites, proving to be the greatest

asset groups have to secure their role as intermediaries in state-society dialogue.

(Halley, 1996)

Very often the level of activity depends entirely on its leader’s personality.

In due course people involved in NGOs changed from engaged idealists to more

professional activists. What did not change much is the dominant position of

middle-aged women at the inside. Some experts believe this phenomenon may

be explained by the fact that other spheres of life, like business and politics, are

controlled almost entirely by men.

One of the main reasons to get involved, in starting up or joining an NGO, is

personal self-realisation and moral satisfaction. Many NGO leaders and activists

stress that they take part in voluntary associations for social purposes, to serve

society, or for the public good (Petrenko, 2001, pp. 60-61). There is a common


phenomenon characteristic for many Russian NGOs, and an odd side effect of a

depressing economic situation of the country. Obviously the more difficult

economic conditions people live in, the more limited opportunities for social

movements and citizens’ associations to obtain necessary funds. On the other

hand, however, unemployment provides many groups with a large number of

voluntary workers. They have much time to spare, and, often, possess useful

skills. Another interesting phenomenon is when people such as orphans, war

veterans and invalids who were at first recipients of assistance from a given

NGO eventually became active members of the organisation themselves.

Assistance from Abroad

Many people in Russia soon became aware that political and economic changes

were brought about ‘from above’. To continue their implementation, and to

maintain those already achieved, a broad support ‘from below’ was necessary.

Thus, new ways of involving citizens to be able to run their own lives, as well as

the life of the society at large, had to be found and tested. To let people voice

their needs a new forum was established. A number of associations were set up

along mutually shared interests, needs or ambitions. Soon, it became clear that

advice and help from the more experienced would be necessary. Oddly enough,

Western specialists started arriving in Russia (read: Moscow and Saint-

Petersburg) even before they were called upon. One can speak of a massive

invasion by a number of foreign NGO prophets in mid-1990s. The keywords of

that period were democracy, rule of law, capacity-building.

Among the most actively involved agencies in this work were the Soros

Foundation Open Society, USAID (primarily through the Eurasia Foundation),

the National Endowment for Democracy, and the European Union Phare/Tacis

Program.

It was planned, and expected, that the Western NGO experts would show

how to build voluntary associations as ‘flat organisations’, and avoid

hierarchical forms. The experts’ role was also to explain why and how leaders of

a particular NGO should be accountable to their members. Also practical skills

would be taught, such as how to formulate objectives and to design an

organisation’s programme, how to apply for (Western) grants, how to run an

NGO office. These experts explained also the need for and techniques of

lobbying or approaching representatives of state and municipal authorities. They

advocated a dialogue instead of confrontation; clarified the need for new

legislation and benefits of co-operation.

What came out when the Western ideals met the Russian reality? Not all

good intentions turned out to be feasible; some, apparently, were misplaced.

Enthusiasm, good will and personal commitment did not always result in

288 Michal Bron Jr

intended outcomes. The two most blatant errors were connected with attempts to

implant Western values and solutions into a Russian soil and with financial

dependency of Russian NGOs. As one American activist soberly observed:

Creating NGOs from the outside does not ensure that these will have a democratic

content or aspire to being vehicles of social and political change or indeed grow roots

and hence legitimacy in local contexts. (Howell, 1999)

Too often Western helpers failed to examine realities of the country they

were trying to help, could not find solutions appropriate for the specific Russian

culture and ignored local needs and problems.

As a rule Western donors give grants to organisations, not to individuals

(with an exception of travel grants and the so-called ‘research funds’). Only

leaders of NGOs are sometimes paid monthly salaries. Thus,

in order for as many people as possible to get funding, the incentive is for many

people to form their own small groups. Competition arises for funding and for fringe

benefits, like trips abroad. Foreign funding creates massive competition over these

scarce resources, which then complicates the movement-building process: it is in the

interest of groups to maintain an individual identity, rather than collaborate with

other groups and risk being overshadowed. The presence of scarce and valued

resources also fosters jealousy. (Sperling, 1998)

Therefore some Russian critics accuse NGO activists of being engaged in the

organisations only for their own, personal benefits, especially if Western donors

finance them.

Naturally, the Western assistance did not only create problems, envy and

corruption among committed idealists. It definitely contributed to setting up

many NGOs, raising professionalism of their leaders and staff, and expressing

problems and needs of many local communities. Some of the oldest

organisations established with the Western donors’ support succeeded in

building up a network of similar organisations in several cities of the vast

country. For instance, the Independent Women’s Forum (set up in 1991 with

grants from the Ford Foundation) today is co-ordinating work of some 200

women’s groups throughout the Russian Federation. Increasing professionalism

of Russian NGOs can be attributed to numerous, specially designed training

courses organised by Western specialists.

The competitiveness of applying for, and obtaining, foreign grants made

NGO activists learn not only how to fill in necessary forms, but also the ‘rules of


the game’ in selection processes. Even the much-criticised practice of paying

salaries (usually rather low) to activists, often had a stimulating effect. Thanks to

these modest allowances people could stay within their organisations and work

for the benefit of others.

Most newly established non-governmental organisations usually lack basic

resources, such as skills, finances, techniques and technology. These are what

the Western donor organisations and NGOs can offer. Often this is exactly what

has actually been provided.

Examples5

Examples from the field would prove that in several cases NGOs made an actual

impact and contributed to an awakening of interest, an engagement and

commitment for the common good among Russian citizens; with or without

direct Western assistance. Some of those organisations have long-lasting

experience of financial hardship. The effectiveness of Western donors and

NGOs varied extensively: some did succeed in giving useful help and training to

would-be local leaders, but others failed in their attempts.

The first independent civic organisations were established in the Soviet

Union in the late 1980s, during the so-called Gorbačev’s perestrojka (1986-

1991). In the beginning, these organisations focused mainly on the struggle for

freedom of speech, the remembrance of the victims of Stalin terror, and the

protection of the environment from gross abuses of state authorities and

industries. In due course, parallel to the changes in political, economic and

social life, people started to organise associations along common interests or

causes. They focused on such questions as the disabled, women’s issues

(especially domestic violence, often alcohol abuse related), rights of consumers,

child protection, rights of patients and such like.

The oldest, and still existing, NGOs are human rights groups. The best

known is the Memorial – Historical, Educational and Charitable Society

founded in 1988 by leading dissidents of that time, with a well-known nuclear

physicist Andrej Sacharov and a historian Jurij Afanas'ev. Its main activity was

to commemorate the victims of Stalin’s terror, to help Gulag survivors and their

families, and to protest against political persecutions. One of the first

achievements of the Society was the successful lobbying towards the

promulgation in 1991 of the Law on Rehabilitation of Victims of Political

Repression. This enactment reinstated civil rights to many political prisoners of

the Soviet regime. For the last decade the Memorial Society has covered a broad

5 Information on presented below organisations have been gathered trough various internet

sites in a search done in July, and repeated in December, 2003. Very seldom official sites

of individual NGO's give information concerning sources of their financing.

290 Michal Bron Jr

scope of activities. Within its educational-historical work it runs archives

documenting atrocities committed by the Soviet regime against its own citizens,

as well as a museum and a number of libraries. It carries out research through

archives and collects oral testimonies of former Gulag prisoners and other

persecuted persons. The results of this work are documented in a series called

the Books of Memory (more than fifty have already been published); lists of the

executed victims in different regions of Russia are constantly being updated.

Another area of its work is human rights protection. Activists of the Memorial

Society monitor the sites of armed conflicts on Russia’s territory (first and

foremost in Chechnya) but even in some post-Soviet states such as Azerbaijan

and Moldova. Members of the Society also monitor conditions under which

Russian convicts live. Moreover, they work with juvenile offenders and try to

help newly released inmates. The third area the Memorial Society is involved in

is charitable work. The Society’s staff and activists provide medical, legal and

also material help to former political prisoners as well as to current victims of

political persecutions. The Memorial Society works through its Moscow-based

headquarters and more than 100 affiliated centres throughout the Russian

Federation and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

In 1989 another human rights organisation was set up, namely the Union of the Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia (until 1998 known as the

Committee of Soldiers Mothers of Russia). It was established to expose and

combat violation of human rights within the Soviet army, such as bullying,

severe punishments and other abuses that could lead as far as conscripts

committing suicide. The regional Committees and their Union focus on

providing legal advice, material and moral support to families. So far the

original Committee has worked to persuade politicians to deal with a legal

vacuum in the military sphere. It has been successful in making the then

president of the Soviet Union, Michail Gorbačev, issue in 1990 the decree

obliging military authorities to accept the Committee’s proposals. The same year

another presidential decree stipulated that atonement would be paid to families

after soldiers’ death. From the mid-1990s the Committee focused its attention on

human rights violation in Chechnya. Due to its commitment and networking as

many as five hundred soldiers who in 1995/96 refused to be drafted to troops to

be sent to Chechnya became acquitted from allegations. Recently, the Union of the Committees has started lobbying for military reform leading to the

abolishment of compulsory drafting of young men. Eventually it gained such a

standing that since 1998 even military prosecutors have started to co-operate

with it. The Union actively co-operates with other human rights NGOs in

promoting ideas of civil society in Russia. The Union is one of very few Russian

NGOs, which generate sufficient funds to operate without a desperate need to

rely on foreign donors. It runs regional branches throughout the whole country.


One of the most important roles in voluntary work for Russian society is

probably that undertaken by lawyers. Taking into account the traditional lack of

respect for the law inherited after Tsarist and communist authoritarian regimes,

Russian citizens acutely need incentives to prove that written laws are expected

to be obeyed by authorities as much as by individual citizens. Several, especially

young, jurists with relevant knowledge started to establish and work in legal aid

centres. One of the oldest NGOs run by lawyers is the Ecojuris – Institute of Environmental Law. Lawyers committed to environmental issues established it

in Moscow in 1991. It is active in commenting on or recommending relevant

laws and regulations, defending citizens’ environmental rights, providing legal

assistance for citizens and non-governmental organizations, maintaining a

database of existing legislation, initiating environmental court cases at regional

and federal levels and in working for greater transparency of state and regional

authorities. It is very committed to defending the rights of the indigenous

nations of the North, Siberia and the Far East to the traditional natural

environment. Ecojuris has organized several training courses for lawyers and

environmental NGOs. It is also concerned about making the general public

aware of and knowledgeable about issues related to the natural environment.

Thus it publishes a series of books on Russian legislation in the sphere of

environmental protection and natural resources and a bulletin entitled Public

Interest Environmental Law Newsletter. In co-operation with a Western NGO it

published a ‘citizens’ guide’ entitled Environmental Protection: Towards legal actions by Russian citizens and two practical manuals for individual citizens and

for NGOs: Defending Your Environmental Rights and Defending Your Environmental Rights in Court. The work done by the Ecojuris attracted a

number of Western donors, such as the MacArthur Foundation, the Soros

Foundation, the Trust for Mutual Understanding, the US AID, the American

Embassy in Russia, the Dutch government, as well as several Russian

authorities, government agencies and private donors. Among the biggest

successes of the Ecojuris are several cases won before the Supreme Court of the

Russian Federation. As with the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, the original

NGO grew into a coalition of related organisations. In February 1997 Ecojuris

set up the Network of Russian Public Interest Environmental Lawyers. The

Network comprises of more than forty individual lawyers and public interest

environmental law NGOs from across the whole country. Most of them are

active in defending citizens’ rights to a fair hearing in the courts of law. In 2000

Ecojuris initiated an international network of environmental lawyers. Several

solicitors from six post-Soviet countries joined the Ecojuris to form the

Eurasian Public Interest Environmental Law Network.

There are other NGOs that succeeded in achieving their goals against

formidable foes and lack of public support. The late 1990s was a time of an

extraordinary growth of human rights organisations. In 1998 among the 89

292 Michal Bron Jr

political units constituting the Russian Federation only 30 had NGOs oriented to

human rights. A year later, there were twice as many (McAuley, 2001).

After the collapse of the Soviet Union new kinds of NGOs could start to

operate. Among them were organisations dealing with ethnic problems. They

were established by members of the many nations and ethnic groups that had

been subjected to atrocious treatment and expulsions during Stalin era. They had

to organise themselves,

in order to tackle their problems in the face of the indifference and inaction of

government. Their relationships with state authorities evolved in an atmosphere of

confrontation, with NGOs largely remaining weak and unheard. (Vitkovskaya, 2000)

However, with effective help from international NGOs, these organisations

learned how to approach and influence authorities. They became stronger

through establishing a network of similar groups and founding two organisations

at the nation-wide level – the Forum for Migration Organisations and the

Foundation Compatriots. Forced migrants constitute over 5 percent of the

Russian Federation electorate, which is not an insignificant factor in their jeu-de-force with authorities.

Interestingly enough, the Internet plays a very important role in setting up

and maintaining NGOs. To use new information and communication facilities

for NGOs’ own purposes was an idea brought to Russia by American NGO

activists. Based on the US experiences, the Internet has become a tool for

facilitating networking between similar NGOs’ active in various places, for en-

abling contacts with donors, international agencies and individuals. It has helped

establishing citizen groups in small towns far away from political centres. One

of the most active Western organisations helping Russian NGOs in using the

Internet capacities is a US-Russian organisation Friends & Partners. Since 1998

it has helped to establish the so-called civic networking websites throughout the

Russian Federation.

The Internet also plays an important role in updating NGOs on changes in

relevant legislation, planned political briefings and the like. It made feasible

quick and undiscriminating access to various databases, news bulletins and

created the possibility of local NGO publishing. The usefulness of the Internet is

often mentioned by Russian NGOs (Halley 1996).

Conclusions

It is rather difficult for an ordinary Russian citizen to commit him/herself and be

active. During the last 10-15 years, despite all the changes, social activism has


not been encouraged. Although during the perestrojka period and the first years

of the new Russian Federation a politicisation of ‘the masses’ did occur, the

process of getting rid of the Soviet system was, since the very beginning, an

initiative ‘from above’, in that it was initiated, controlled and run by the highest

echelons of political class. In practice, the Soviet system was not defeated: it

merely collapsed. Eventually more and more citizens lost their passion and

interest, and became dissatisfied with their leaders and their programmes. The

familiar state of apathy and indifference seemed to be a safer option.

Many NGOs, set up with or without Western assistance, moved into such

spheres of life which the State’s services have abandoned; they often succeeded

in providing an alternative, even if on a limited scale, to the collapsed state

sector. In some instances Western partners contributed to bringing about

democratic changes in local communities. Undoubtedly, they also helped them

to learn how to write proposals, seek grants, make budgets and similar important

technicalities concerning how to run an NGO on a day-to-day basis. One of the

Western observers noticed with satisfaction, that,

Donors have done a great job in nurturing a growing cadre of committed NGO

professionals with the organisational skills and the networks to sustain their activities

in the face of an often hostile social and legal environment. (Richter, 2000)

Throughout the 1990s, foreign assistance was an important, sometimes the

only, source of income (mostly very modest). It helped many small local NGOs

in surviving daily-life problems. Close co-operation between foreign volunteers

and local people meant new fields of activities could be identified and dealt

with. Without the support, both financial and in terms of expertise, many

Russian NGOs would not have survived the enthusiasm of their leaders.

Various kinds of social movements emerged across the whole country. By

the end of 1990s, many of them were well rooted in their local communities and

had established the co-operation of local authorities. In many cities

nongovernmental organisations got together and created centres of civil society

– places where legal, editorial and practical help could be obtained.

Naturally many, if not all, Russian NGOs face more or less serious obstacles.

One of the most prevalent is lack of recognition as legitimate partners from the

state and municipal authorities. Both governmental officials and ‘ordinary

people’ regard the volunteers as a mixture of hobbyists and philanthropists.

Experiences and achievements of some NGOs give, however, grounds for

some optimism:

294 Michal Bron Jr

NGOs have been more successful in building relations with legislative branch

structures – both federal and local. They have been involved in the overall effort to

draft laws, carry out legislators’ initiatives and are forming the migration lobby in the

Russian parliament. (Vitkovskaya, 2000)

Natalya Popova, a founder and a leader of one of the NGOs, is convinced

that non-governmental organisations have a real impact on Russian society:

“NGOs have the advantage of being more flexible, more adaptable and more

sensitive to people’s needs than the state” (cited in Lambroschini, 1999).

Halley (1996) was able to establish factors which conditioned success or

failure of Russian NGOs. The successful ones had their goals very clearly

defined; they paid attention to introducing general public to their objectives and

work; they showed the ability to raise funds from local donors, thus avoiding

financial dependence on Western sources. But many Russian NGOs are still

fragile. Some of them are depending on the state authorities’ benevolence, many

others seek direct financial support from the State (Choroč, 1998, p. 201).

Hence, the well-meant mission of Western donors and sister organisations is not

yet completed.

References

Afanas'ev, Jurij (1991, January 31). The coming dictatorship. New York Review of Books, (pp.

36-39).

Carnaghan, Ellen (2001). Thinking about democracy. Interviews with Russian citizens. Slavic

Review, 60, 336-366.

Choros, Vladimir Georgievič (Ed.) (1998). Graždanskoe oščestvo. Mirovoj opyt i problemy

Rossii [Civil society. World’s experiences and Russia’s problems]. Moskva: Editorial

URSS.

DeLuca, Tom (1995). The two faces of political apathy. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University

Press.

Diligenskij, German (2001). Suščestvuet li v Rossii graždanskoe obščestvo? [Is there any civil

society in Russia?]. In Pogovorim …. (pp. 14-24).

Ecojuris – Institute of Environmental Law. Retrieved December 25, 2003 from

http://webcenter.ru/~ecojuris; http://webcenter.ru/~ecojuris/einfo.htm

http://webcenter.ru/~ecojuris/rprojects.htm; http://webcenter.ru/~ecojuris/rjuris.htm

Golenkova, Zinajda T., Vitjuk Viktor V., Gridčin, Jurij V., Černych, Alla I., & Romanenko,

Larisa M. (1995). Stanovlenie graždanskogo obščestva i social'naja stratifikacija [Civil

society. Formation and social stratification]. Sociologičeskie issledovanija, 6, 14-24.

Goncharov, Ivan Aleksandrovich (1979) Oblomov (C. J. Hogarth, Trans.) Cambridge, Mass:

R. Bentley (Reprint of 1915 edition. Original work published in Russian 1858).


Halley, Colleen F. (n.d.). The transitional emergence of civil society organizations in Russia

since 1991: The case of human rights groups. Retrieved March 2001, from

http://www.madriver.com/users/comet/Thesis/table_of_contents.htm [Date of writing

circa 1996.]

Howell, Jude (1999). Manufacturing civil society from the outside. Some dilemmas and

challanges. Retrieved December 21, 2003, from

http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/govern/pdfs/jh.pdf

Judge, Anthony (1995). NGOs and civil society. Some realities and distortions – the challenge

of ‘Necessary-to-Governance Organizations’ (NGOs) [Electronic version]. Transnational

Associations, 47(3), 156-180. Retrieved November 19, 2003, from

http://www.uia.org/uiadocs/ngocivil.htm

Keane, John (1998). Civil society. Old images, new visions, Cambridge: Polity.

Kennaway, Alexandre (1997). The mental and psychological inheritance of contemporary

Russia. Retrieved December 21, 2003, from

http://da.mod.uk/CSRC/Home/Miscellaneous/M20/M20.pt1

Lambroschini, Sophie (1999). Russia: Expressions of civil society gain ground. Retrieved

December 21, 2003, from

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/11/F.RU.991130131712.html

Levašov, V. K. (Ed.). (2001). Rossijskoje obščestvo i radikal'nye reformy. Monitoring

social'nych i političeskich indikatorov [The Russian society and radical reforms.

Monitoring social and political indicators]. Moskva: Academia.

McAuley, Mary (2001). The big chill. Civil society in Russia in a new political season.

Retrieved December 21, 2003, from http://www.civilsoc.org//resource/ffw2001.htm

Memorial – Historical, Educational and Charitable Society. Retrieved December 25, 2003,

from http://www.memo.ru/eng/about/charter.htm

http://www.memo.ru/eng/history/intro.htm; http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints

Peace, Richard (1991). Oblomov: A critical examination of Goncharov’s novel. Birmingham

Slavonic Monographs of Department of Russian Language and Literature, University of

Birmingham 20.

Petrenko, K. (2001). NKO i graždanskoe obščesvto [NGO’s and civil society]. In

Pogovorim... (pp. 49-67).

Pogovorim o graždanskom obščestve (2001). [Let's talk about civil society]. Moskva: FOM

Richter, James (2000). Civil society or the third sector? Retrieved December 21, 2003, from

http://www.isar.org/isar/archive/GT/GT4Richter.html

Ryan, Michael (Comp., & Trans.). (1993). Social trends in contemporary Russia: Statistical

source-book, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Sperling, Valerie (1998). Foreign funding of social movements in Russia [Electronic version].

New Approaches to Russian Security Policy. Memo Series Memo No. 26. Retrieved

December 21, 2003, from

http://www.csis.org/ruseura/ponars/policymemos/pm_0026.pdf

Union of the Committees of Soldiers Mothers of Russia. Retrieved December 25, 2003, from

http://www.ucsmr.ru/; http://www.ucsmr.ru/english/ucsmr/history.htm

296 Michal Bron Jr

http://www.ucsmr.ru/english/ucsmr/report/report2002.htm

Vitkovskaya, Galina (2000). Post-Soviet migrations, the Geneva process and civil society in

Russia. Retrieved December 21, 2003, from http://www.carnegie.ru/en/print/48351-

print.htm

17 a remedy for apathy? the role of ngos in activating...

Documents